Comparison Overview
ODIDO

ODIDO
Sint-Godardusstraat 36, Bekkerzeel, 1730, BE
Last Update: 29/09/2026
Of all the things we do, the most vital is coordinating the talents of those who work for our clients by pointing them towards a certain goal. To our company IT can be defined as a way of developing structure in a complex project, where the independent variables of time...

SONDA
Teatinos 500, Santiago, CL
Last Update: 13/09/2026
We are at the forefront of digital transformation in the Americas, positively impacting the lives of over 500 million people. As a key player in emerging industries, we drive innovation and change through ambitious modernization projects and cutting-edge solutions. By u...
Compliance Ranges Comparison

ODIDO







SONDA






Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals
Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)
ODIDO has 92.31% more incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.
Incidents vs Information Technology & Services Industry Avg (This Year)
No incidents recorded for SONDA in 2026.
Incident History - ODIDO (X = Date, Y = Severity)
ODIDO cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Incident History - SONDA (X = Date, Y = Severity)
SONDA cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.
Notable Incidents

ODIDO

SONDA
FAQ
Latest Global CVEs
Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.
Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.
Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.